How will Melbourne cope with six million people?

WHEN Cara Horner moved to a new housing estate in Epping North, she was drawn by its environmental credentials, the lower land prices and the chance to build an affordable family home.

Yes, her family would be moving away from a well-established suburb but Horner was reassured by VicUrban, the government's development agency now named Places Victoria, that the estate would soon have the transport links and community services needed to ensure a good quality of life.

Five years later, she is stunned by how many of those promises turned out to be hollow. "We have bus stops here that don't have buses running to them because the Victorian government won't put any funding into the route extension," she says.

Every home on the estate was meant to be within 400 metres of a bus stop. Residents were also promised a train, an "Epping North spur line" that would peel off from Lalor station, and an interchange on the nearby Hume highway.

"When we were buying our land we were told the train line would be five or 10 years, then it was 20 and now we're hearing it won't happen," says Horner, who is a member of the Aurora Community Association.

Like Horner, many Melburnians will soon be living on former farmland on the city's fringes that was recently rezoned residential.

By 2050, Melbourne's population is forecast to hit up to 6.4 million — an additional 2.3 million people in less than four decades.

This influx is sobering when you consider the amount of infrastructure required to support that many new residents.

The population trigger used by planners to figure out when to build a new primary school, kindergarten or childcare centre is 9000 residents. A new police station is 40,000 residents and a new hospital is 50,000.

And this does not factor in train stations, which are determined by the government, as Horner has discovered.

Delivering the new schools and hospitals will not be easy for the cash-strapped state government. Perhaps it's not surprising so many people want to move to Melbourne – it holds the much-vaunted title of the "world's most liveable city", as rated by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

But a recent United Nations report, which lists Melbourne as one of the world's top 10 most prosperous cities, found its weakest performance was in "equity and social inclusion". As Melbourne's phenomenal growth continues, both in population and geographic size, one thing seems clear: some people are more equal than others when it comes to access to taxpayer-funded services and infrastructure.

Last month Planning Minister Matthew Guy released a discussion paper on planning for Melbourne's development for the next 40 years. It was the first insight into the government's metropolitan strategy, which will replace Labor's Melbourne 2030 plan.

At the same time as this strategy is being developed, Guy is changing zoning rules that determine what can be built and where and, in his words, transforming planning from an academic into an "economic" portfolio.

Some big questions remain unanswered. Will the eventual strategy match what is being proposed in the discussion paper?

And why change the fundamentals of the system before you know in which direction you are heading?

When he approved towering apartment blocks in the CBD recently, Guy said the government would continue to "provide confidence to the development industry" and there would be "continuing reform of our planning system to increase opportunity and productivity".

But in the rush to create construction jobs, has planning a liveable, enjoyable city with decent transport services and infrastructure taken a back seat to economic activity? Many on Melbourne's fringes and in existing infill suburbs say new housing might have mushroomed but there is little in the way of new services.

Guy recently highlighted the challenge of maintaining Melbourne's "liveability" as a city of 6 million, with only two of the top 10 cities in the Economist's liveability survey having more residents than Melbourne: Sydney and Toronto (the greater Toronto area).

Indeed, he said "the larger the city becomes, the harder it is to maintain an international standard of liveability".

"How we plan for that growth is the key to ensuring our city remains one of the most diverse, distinctive and liveable cities in world."

One of the ideas that emerges from the government's planning discussion paper is a "20-minute city", where people "live local" and work, eat and play close to home.

But not everyone in Melbourne will be equal in the 20-minute city, the report notes. For some it will be a 20-minute walk, others will need to drive.

"Whether the 20-minute travel distance is by walking, cycling, bus or car will depend on the area and the habits of its residents," the report says.

But the "habits" of many in Melbourne are determined by their access to quality public transport, walking and cycling paths and nearby services. David Turnbull, chief executive of the City of Whittlesea, has been working in growth areas for decades and cannot remember a time when there was more pressure to deliver new services.

"I would describe the situation at the moment as the most perilous it has been in 34 years," he says.

Four years ago, following a rezoning, the number of residents moving to the council's area jumped from about 2500 a year to up to 9500. On Epping Road and Plenty Road, the main roads that link to the Epping North and Mernda growth corridors, it can take 40 minutes "just to leave your suburb", Turnbull says. There are about 60 births a week in the municipality and the Northern Hospital is struggling to cope with demand, he says.

But infrastructure funding in growth areas is slow in coming. In Caroline Springs, in Melbourne's outer west, a road to a paddock is the only sign of the site where a train station has been promised.

"The rural and regional areas have a dedicated growth fund of $1 billion in state funding – the growth areas have no such funding," Turnbull says.

He believes it is time the government appointed a minister for growth areas, to take responsibility for the proper funding of Melbourne's newest communities.

Toronto ranks fourth in the liveability stakes and has reached a number of conclusions when it comes to planning: urban sprawl must end and building new freeways will not solve a city's transportation needs.

"We only have infill development in the city . . . the question is how do we do that infill?" says Toronto's chief planner, Jennifer Keesmaat.

About 15 years ago, Toronto and the regional government realised urban sprawl was destroying natural habitat and threatening the city's water supply, so it was halted.

Ending sprawl involved significant negotiation with the development industry because a lot of developers had purchased farmland on the assumption they would be able to continue to develop ad nauseam, Keesmaat says.

Once the boundary was made clear it shifted the market and drove a significant amount of development into infill sites. Keesmaat says it was a "huge problem" if developers could lobby the government to move the urban boundary.

Melbourne's boundary has expanded almost 100,000 hectares in a decade, with developers and planning ministers interpreting the urban "boundary" as a point of negotiation.

Keesmaat says the fundamental issue all cities must address when planning for growth is having "a very clear structure of where growth won't go", and limiting urban sprawl is part of that.

"It's about identifying hubs where there is a very strong nexus of public transportation and an opportunity to accommodate mixed-use growth," she says.

Toronto has a population of 2.48 million people, or 5.5 million in the greater Toronto area, and much of its development had been directed to the heart of the city. "We have built 177,000 units over the past 10 years and most of them have been in the core of the city, within two kilometres of the centre of the city," Keesmaat says.

And while the Baillieu government pushes for a new freeway connecting the Eastern Freeway and City Link, Keesmaat says Toronto has moved beyond arguments about freeways and is instead debating whether to build more light rail or more expensive subways.

"That is the transportation of the future," she says. "Creating environments where people can live and work and play all within walking distance . . . the ticket here is ensuring people can live where they work and the most ideal scenario is a quick transit [public transport] ride, or they can walk, or they can cycle."

Walking to a childcare centre from her house in the government-planned and developed Aurora estate is not an option for Cara Horner, who is angered by a planning model that allows developers to walk away after carving up paddocks for housing.

"I have to drive to childcare in Epping because there's not a childcare centre here yet," she says.

"Those guys are coming out here, buying land at such a cheap rate, making such a profit off it, it seems like they're the only people who are winning out of this."

Developers are obliged to contribute only a fraction of the cost of delivering new infrastructure. Since a growth area infrastructure tax was introduced in 2010, Melbourne developers have contributed $33.4 million.

The 3.5-kilometre South Morang rail extension alone, which included new stations and line upgrades, cost $562 million.

"Whether Melbourne has 4 million or 6 million people, we're not travelling in a particularly equitable direction," she says. "I don't necessarily see population growth as a bad thing, it just has to be managed properly. Currently, we live in a socially divided and environmentally unsustainable city."

Ruth Spielman, National Growth Areas Alliance executive officer, says growth areas across the country share common problems and the concept of a "tale of two cities" applies in terms of poorer outcomes in education, access to jobs, unemployment and housing stress.

Horner says there is a wider story to Melbourne's crown as the world's most liveable city.

"Melbourne is liveable for people who can afford it, or those who are lucky enough to grow up in an area that has all that transport," she says. "For people on the fringes who have taken out 95 per cent mortgages, plus paying for petrol, it's killing them.

"It shouldn't be a 'them and us' thing in our city. We should all have equitable access; we all pay taxes and there should be better planning for that to occur."

172 comments so far

Well perhaps had those people done their due diligence before moving in to some povo area, they would not be in the situation they are now in. What's that saying about paying peanuts? I suppose that silly whingeing woman expects Aurora to retain the same country feel it had when she bought into the area yet still be provided with the services of a city slicker who has spent good money to live in that desirable location.

Furthermore, suburban branch lines are something that we should be moving away from rather than encouraging. They only serve to create bottlenecks feeding into the existing network. A bus line every 20 mins to Epping Station would be more than satisfactory. It is people like that woman which create the demand for these outer suburban slums to be built. Without demand, these developments would not be viable. How about buying into a 1 or two bedroom flat in a transport rich area rather than chasing that McMansion in Slumville? Basically if you buy into an area like that, you get what you deserve...

Commenter

Manila_Playa87

Location

Caulfield

Date and time

November 21, 2012, 8:02PM

How dare someone build a house in the vast expanse that is Australia. Sure am glad I don't have friends like you.

Commenter

Harley

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

November 22, 2012, 8:15AM

Well said Mathew Guy.

Commenter

Circusmaximus

Date and time

November 22, 2012, 8:34AM

Why on Earth do we want 6m people in Melbourne??? Politicians need to listen to the overwhelming majority of Australians who are outraged by govts accepting / targeting massive population growth.

More people means- Everyone lives in smaller apartments, on average further from the city where the jobs are, meaning we all waste our lives in gridlock- Massive environmental degradation and greater pollution- Huge new infrastructure costs, draining public money needed to fund NDIS & Gonsky etc- Greater congestion and loss of spaciousness

All for what???? This is a massive issue that should guide your vote - make the politicians hear us.

Commenter

Gatsby

Date and time

November 22, 2012, 8:57AM

Judging by your comments, ignorance is very common in your world comments like "povo area" and "slumville" just show how Un-Australian you are, and how little you care about the current situation in our state. Living in a slum like caulfield you should wake up and smell the stink, if planning for infrastructure does not improve this whole state will turn into a sinkhole.

Commenter

Geoff

Date and time

November 22, 2012, 8:59AM

"Outer suburban Slum" Say What???Geez - somebody has had his dose of private schoolboys values in spades hasnt he?? Feeling superior to the majority of the world are you???There are a lot of other older suburbs with all the infrastructure already there, that I would call more slumlike than the new development areas.The problem is, they're selling the land with empty promises of future roads/buses/trains, that never happen.Look at the North West train line - that was meant to be rolled out in 2013 originally, at last count it was up past 2015.

As for the whole idea of buying a 1-2 bedroom flat in the city - no good if you have a FAMILY and want them to keep healthy by playing outside! Not everyone wants to live in a concrete jungle. And don't say 'what about the parks' - you cant take the kids to a park every hour of every day, but you CAN send them outside in the garden to play all the time!!

And those 1-2 bedroom flats cost more to buy in the inner suburbs than a house on a section in the 'burbs.

As for your comment about a bus to Epping station every 20 minutes - yes, maybe that WOULD be acceptable, but if you read the article , it says there are 'bus stops but no buses' because the govt didnt approve extensions to the bus lines.

Maybe if the govt did what they promised, we wouldnt have these issues.

Commenter

Suburbanite

Date and time

November 22, 2012, 9:02AM

@Manila_Playa87 (nice name.. playa)Living in Caulfield, with the parents, no doubt... It's easy to sit on the soap box when you're already established in the inner-city.How would you expect a family of 4-5 people move into an inner-city apartment with no access to schools/facilities (as the city doesnt cater for such people).

A young immigrant family wouldnt have a chance in the utopian town that exists in your mind (perhaps that family was once your own, when they moved to Australia).

Time to grow up mate..

Commenter

Chopt

Location

OutWest

Date and time

November 22, 2012, 9:05AM

If people continue to vote for the Lib-Labs then they will continue to get the same old thing. More roads, more traffic, more pollution and no new train or trams lines. The old parties are dinosaurs and need to be replaced with Greens and progressive independents if we are to have a truly sustainable future. But will the masses ever wake up to this?

Commenter

Sid Arthur

Location

Brunswick

Date and time

November 22, 2012, 9:10AM

@Manila_Playa, there's no irony detectable in that remark - are you for real? Trust me, a lot of people can't afford to live in Caulfield. Ten years ago Aurora was being aggressively marketed as the Caulfield of the north: a new generation of liveable, eco-sensitive suburban development worthy of the new century. All backed up by the government of the day, who rezoned the land and touted it as one of Victoria's foremost examples of planned urban development. Even some independent planners and environmentalists jumped on the bandwagon.

Sure, those of us with years of bitter experience saw through what was merely another opportunistic subdivision in a green wedge with 'vapourware' public transport promises to attract residents - but I'm sure it was very convincing to most people at the time.

Commenter

Tony

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

November 22, 2012, 9:23AM

Yours is a pretty mean response. If 4, 5, 6 million people are to live in zone 1 (where you suggest), a complete rethink of our housing development would have to occur, to something akin to the high rise public housing estates surrounded by open space for recreation, covering much of the inner urban area. This would require courageous community leadership of a sort which we have not seen for a long time anywhere in Australia. Can you really see this happening? Consolidation and demolition of most of the existing housing stock, the undoing of the great suburban dream, to be replaced by something else altogether. I don't think so. Until we find such enlightened thinking, the urban growth boundary will continue to be pressured ever outward, along with the false promises offered to those poor souls who choose to live build there. The danger currently playing out is cheek by jowl high rise residential development for private profit with no allocation of open space. We will look back on the Victorian Housing Commission experiment of the sixties as forward thinking, if only they weren't such a cultural and social nightmare.

22 Nov
For Melbourne to retain her charm, the next growth period, which will be huge, must be gently managed. As our population doubles from a medium-sized city of about 4.2 million people now to a large metropolis of 8 million by the middle of this century, we will be changing shape at a fast rate. The question is, into what?

21 Nov
The City of Whittlesea is calling on the State Government to create a pipeline of guaranteed funding for Melbourne’s seven ‘growth’ municipalities and appoint a Minister for Growth Areas to ensure residents in the booming outer suburbs have the core services and infrastructure they need and deserve.